United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Hilarious Blacksmith Uses Science To Shut Down Insane ‘Fire Can’t Melt Steel’ 9/11 Truthers
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/17 ... -cant-melt-steel-911-truthers/
Published: Dec 17, 2015
Author: The Federalist Staff
Post Date: 2015-12-17 14:38:47 by no gnu taxes
Keywords: None
Views: 17456
Comments: 60
Give this man a medal. In just two minutes, blacksmith Trenton Tye of Purgatory Ironworks uses science to hilarious effect to mock 9/11 truthers who insist the 2001 terrorist attacks were a conspiracy. And why are these nutters convinced the whole thing was an inside job? Because fire can’t melt steel (Seriously, read through that entire 9/11 conspiracy theory thread. It is amazing.) Tye, a professional metalworker based in Georgia, has had enough. He filmed the following video to prove to science-hating 9/11 conspiracy mongers once and for all that structural steel will absolutely lose its structural integrity if it gets too hot: “So I am taking time out of my busy day to try to put to rest one of the more moronic things I have seen on the Internet lately, and that’s saying something,” Tye tells the camera. “‘Jet fuel only burns at 1,500 degrees and since steel melts at 2,700 degrees, 9/11 was a conspiracy!'” “What I am upset about is the retarded metallurgical things that you guys are saying. I’m not arguing the facts,” Tye says. “Jet fuel does in fact burn at 1,500 degrees. Some carbon steels will start melting at 2,300 degrees. But if you hold this up as a reason for conspiracy, you are an idiot!” To prove his point, Tye compared the structural strength of a room-temperature piece of steel to the strength of one that had been heated to 1,800 degrees in his workshop’s furnace. “It’s very hot, but not melted,” Tye notes by tapping the piece of steel on an anvil. “Half-inch solid steel. Check it out,” Tye says as he bends the solid steel rod back and forth using only his pinkie finger. “It’s a freakin’ noodle!” “Your argument is invalid. Get over it!” Tye exclaims as he drops the mic by dropping the glowing steel rod. “Find a job!” We salute you, Trenton Tye. You are a real American hero. Godspeed.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
(Edited)
Plane alloy - material of aluminum - magnesium ... at these temperatures don't burn --- they explode ! Ask Ricky Nelson ... dc3 - kerosene stove --- about that one ! If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
It goes without saying that this blacksmith works for Rumsfeld and the Booshes. And Cheney too. He probably planted the nanothermite explosives in Building 7 himself.
I love it. It's pretty persuasive. It would have been more persuasive if he had heated the iron to only 1500 degrees and done that, though. Because, after all, jet fuel burns at 1500 degrees, not 1800 degrees. What we just saw was 1800 degrees. Where did the extra 300 degrees in the building come from? At what temperature does steel do that bending thing? 1800, we've seen. But what does the steel do at 1500? My guess: it becomes flexible enough for a building of great weight to cause it to bend, but not flexible enough for this blacksmith to be able to make his demonstration. so he chose 1800, to make his (probably valid) point. 300 degrees is not a trivial difference. It's the difference betwee the iceberg that sank the Titanic and the steam power that drove the Titanic.
The Most Outrageous 9/11 Conspiracy Theory On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor. It was lied to by the Pentagon, the CIA, the Bush Administration and as for Bush and Cheney…well, no one knows what they told it because they testified in secret, off the record, not under oath and behind closed doors. It didn’t bother to look at who funded the attacks because that question is of “little practical significance“. Still, the 9/11 Commission did brilliantly, answering all of the questions the public had (except most of the victims’ family members’ questions) and pinned blame on all the people responsible (although no one so much as lost their job), determining the attacks were “a failure of imagination” because “I don’t think anyone could envision flying airplanes into buildings ” except the Pentagon and FEMA and NORAD and the NRO. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much In the twin towers, much of the jet fuel (primarily kerosene) was burned in a huge fireball outside the building. In any case, the steel was much, much begger than 1/2 inch steel, and Tye does not explain how 110 stories, over 1,000 feet of it, was weakened to a noodle state. How did a fire on the 90th floor weaken the huge beams on the 80th, or 60th, or 40th floor? If the whole steel structure acted like a heat sink, there was not enough fire to get them hot. If not, the lower steel was simply not affected. The fall of the buildings was at near free fall acceleration. This is difficult to explain unless the bottom steel structure essentially offered near zero resistance.
You only need to weaken a few floors. Once they start pancaking downward, it's all over.
I do like the blacksmith demo. It is informative and the point that steel loses strength progressively as it gets hotter certainly needs to be addressed. But this is far from settling the whole matter. In addition to his showing the effect of 1800 degree heat and not 1500 degree heat on steel, there are still the question of how long it would take the twin tower steel to absorb that amount of heat energy from burning jet fuel (or whatever else may have been burning in the towers). The poor heat conductivity of steel would have made things worse, as the heat the steel absorbed would not have been conducted throughout the towers, which would have kept the portions of the steel structured exposed to the fires cooler. One video of the South tower showed what appeared to be molten steel flowing out of the tower. That is something I've never seen explained away and which I consider extremely suspicious.
Question: How many here have read the official NIST reports? Every board has this video up right now and most of the comments prove that few people have any idea what the official conspiracy theory is at all. This guy didn't prove anything about 911. Below are a few important excerpts from the official NIST NCSTAR 1A WTC 7 final document. Note that the max temp in 7 per NIST was 900 Centigrade, 1650 F. But that was only a small area. Most temps were around 400-600 C. Temp of Self Cleaning Oven- 500 C. The most important sentence: Thus, WTC 7 did not collapse due to fire induced weakening of critical columns Source: http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610 (The Official PDF does not allow copy & paste.)
But how many people are going to differentiate that the blacksmith was only talking about the Twin Towers, not WTC 7. Certainly, I had that distinct impression throughout his talk. Typically, when people discuss WTC 7, they mention that name. Clearly, no jet hit it so it is different from the Towers. As for the collapse of WTC 7, I'm not sure how many people will care deeply that the official report blamed the heat expansion of column 79, leading to the collapse of columns 80 & 81, followed by a general structural collapse via pancaking. Maybe it is a bigger source of controversy than I am aware of.
Let me see if I get this straight - you ignore the findings of 2,408 architects and engineers all with advanced degrees in engineering, and your "compelling evidence" is provided by a blacksmith who most likely has NO degree in engineering? Yeah - he's a real "expert" alright. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much The blacksmith was objective enough to admit he had no idea if it was a conspiracy or not. His only peeve was that people had/have the impression that steel maintains the same structural strength at room temp as at 1800 degrees, below the melting point of steel.
And you ignore the millions of architects and engineers worldwide who do embrace the official 9/11 explanations. Among all competent professionals with the required expertise, the numbers who are Truthers are a vanishingly small (but vocal) minority. Not that that proves anything one way or the other. It is credible evidence that is meaningful, not gaggles of also-ran engineers and architects, many of whom were not qualified technically to design skyscrapers or who had an adequate understanding of modern materials science.
I disagree. Here is why. Say a few floors did get weakened. Then the path of least resistance is not straight down. It is to fall over. That is how I see it.
What are your suspiciouns?
What are your suspiciouns? If what the video shows really is melted steel, then it means temperatures were far hotter than is possible with jet fuel and ordinary office combustibles such as paper, furniture, carpeting and the like. Thermite/Thermate set on the support beams becomes a candidate explanation, which of course would indicate pre-placement in advance, and thus an "inside job" of sorts, whether by the government or some other entity. I would be interested in hearing other explanations for what appears to be molten steel flowing from the tower (maybe it isn't steel), or otherwise what could cause steel to melt besides thermite. This is also a vid of a series of interesting experiments with Thermite. Much like the blacksmith's but much more in depth, obviously made by someone who is also professionally knowledgeable about steel.
When he can take a piece of steel hundreds of feet long and heat it only in a three foot section to 1800 degrees let me know. The energy will travel quickly to equalize the temperature. There is a reason that no modern high rise building has ever collapsed before 9-11 or since then. It is because they flat out cannot do so without help from another source than a kerosene fueled fire.
Not really. With aluminum, yes, but steel, no. Though we think of metals as inherently good conductors of heat, steel rates rather poorly there. Aluminum conducts heat quite rapidly by comparison. It's why steel pots & pans generally don't need much in the way of thermally insulated handles. The pot gets hot, yet the steel handle welded or riveted to it remains only warm to the touch. In the video itself, the blacksmith removed the steel rod from the furnace with his bare hand. One end glowing hot, but the other cool enough to pick up. Steel, in comparison with other metals, is a poor heat conductor. EDIT: Correction: He didn't take it out with his bare hand. But still, you can plainly see how one end was far hotter than the other.
Mmmmm...the path of least resistance is always straight down. There's this thing called gravity. Things only fall over because one side of an object (a tower) fails first. And that does make sense. However, in the case of the Towers, their structural strength was all in the central support columns. The entire building hung on those. So any collapse had to start from the center. Therefore, you get pancaking which started downward and whose force will only get stronger with each floor that pancaked down as the sheer mass and inertia grew with each floor that collapsed. It only takes a few floors pancaking to make the whole tower pancake to the ground.
Exactly so. I've read some very strange Truther articles on how steel spreads and dissipates heat miraculously. But anyone who has worked with a torch knows better. It conducts some heat but not very effectively. A torch could never be effective at cutting steel if it was as conductive as the Truthers believe.
Just curious, have you read any of the official NIST reports on the Twin Towers? http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909017 Obviously few have. It's hilarious to watch the nonsense spew like a busted fire hydrant.
If there is a point of weakness in the middle. The base is still solid. It should fall over because there is resistaqnce straight down but none if it were to fall over.
Someone gave me a copy of the 9/11 Commission report for X-mas one year. I thought it was too dull to read. I think I still have it somewhere but have no more interest in reading it now than I did then. I never click any .gov link. Well, almost never.
I'm not going to go there. You win. Okay?
That is just what it seems like to me. I'm not an expert. I could be wrong. Who knows.
The pancake theory was proven to defy the laws of physics and was officially rejected by the officials reports from the U.S. government. It is impossible to pancake the floors and get them to the ground in the amount of time observed and documented. This does not indicate I accept the NIST theory, just that the original pancake theory had to be abandoned as proven impossible. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (NIST NCSTAR throughout this document refers to one of the 43 volumes that comprise NIST’s final report on the WTC Towers issued in October 2005. All sections of the report listed in this document are available at http://wtc.nist.gov.) [...] 2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis. NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers. Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse. Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower. NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns— consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
You've watched too many Roadrunner cartoons. You thought they were going to tip over like the Tower of Pisa? Give me a break.
7WTC collapse was admitted to have been proven to have achieved gravitational acceleration for over two seconds. That is a physical impossibility if pancaking is occurring. The is no official theory of the collapse mechanism of 7WTC. The official theory goes to the point of collapse initiation, states that collapse was inevitable at that point. The end. And it took something like 6 or 7 years to say that much.
Steel will melt if heated enough and weaken before it melts. However, it was impossible for the available flammables to produce the needed temperature to melt steel, or to weaken 110 stories of huge steel beams. http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101016 NIST NCSTAR1-3 Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigtation of the World Trade Center Disaster Mechanical and Metallurgical Snalysis of Structural Steel Executive Summary page xli The scientific evidence is not very amenable to melting or weakening the steel beams by fire. Other forensic evidence indicates that the last example probably occurred in the debris pile after collapse. Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600°C for any significant time. Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for the two core columns recovered from the fire-affected floors of the towers, which had adequate paint for analysis.
Except for the collapse time defying the laws of physics if it were pancaking floors. That is why the pancake theory had to be officially abandoned.
NIST admits almost 4 seconds. The only way for that to happen is if there's nothing underneath. Part 2 and 3 at Youtube NIST.GOV: Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (09/17/2010, ARCHIVE, incorporated into 9/19/2011 update) In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics? In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail. To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky. The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf). The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse: Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall). This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm Almost no one has read the official docs.
Bingo. And, at the lower floors, the steel was bigger and stronger. I note that this does not explain what did happen, only something that did not happen.
Not surprised. You're "too busy". ROFL Let those who have actually read the material try to figure it out. You've got better things to do. Of course not.
Gravity doesn't go sideways ... the fire was internal - Straight down --- it's called reality !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Free fall from the 1.75 second mark until the 4 second mark is 2.25 seconds of free fall. Collapse at gravitational acceleration is incompatible with the pancaking of floors, whether it be for 2 or 4 seconds. I should make clear that I know of nothing that fully explains the observed phenomena with all the buildings.
The cumulative falling ... weight - force increases --- so what ! There was one corner of a building stairwell where there were survivors ! If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Only the video evidence proved that "significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse." The cores fell after the floors around them had already fallen. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_faqs_082006.cfm Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (August 30, 2006) (8/6/2006, ARCHIVE, incorporated into 9/19/2011 update) [excerpt] 6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)? NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A). As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that: “… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation. Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.” In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass. From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
Bigger, stronger steel provides greater resistance, not no resistance. It provides much more resistance than air. If the floors provided no resistance to the downforce, what created the horizontal force that ejected steel beams that were found in the sides of buildings hundreds of yards away?
Comments (41 - 60) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
#3. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
(Edited)
#4. To: TooConservative (#2)
#5. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
These 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcohol, snort cocaine, and live with pink-haired strippers, managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York, while in Washington a pilot who couldn’t handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon’s coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001.
Luckily, the news anchors knew who did it within minutes, the pundits knew within hours, the Administration knew within the day, and the evidence literally fell into the FBI’s lap. But for some reason a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists demanded an investigation into the greatest attack on American soil in history.
The investigation was delayed, underfunded, set up to fail, a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish. It was based on testimony extracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed. It failed to mention the existence of WTC7, Able Danger, Ptech, Sibel Edmonds, OBL and the CIA, and the drills of hijacked aircraft being flown into buildings that were being simulated at the precise same time that those events were actually happening. “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#6. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
#7. To: nolu chan (#6)
In the twin towers, much of the jet fuel (primarily kerosene) was burned in a huge fireball outside the building. In any case, the steel was much, much begger than 1/2 inch steel, and Tye does not explain how 110 stories, over 1,000 feet of it, was weakened to a noodle state.
#8. To: TooConservative, nolu chan (#7)
(Edited)
#9. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
#10. To: Operation 40 (#9)
#11. To: no gnu taxes, Operation40, TooConservative (#0)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#12. To: TooConservative (#10)
But how many people are going to differentiate that the blacksmith was only talking about the Twin Towers, not WTC 7. Certainly, I had that distinct impression throughout his talk.
#13. To: Deckard (#11)
Let me see if I get this straight - you ignore the findings of 2,408 architects and engineers all with advanced degrees in engineering, and your "compelling evidence" is provided by a blacksmith who most likely has NO degree in engineering?
#14. To: TooConservative (#7)
You only need to weaken a few floors. Once they start pancaking downward, it's all over.
#15. To: Pinguinite (#8)
That is something I've never seen explained away and which I consider extremely suspicious.
#16. To: A K A Stone (#15)
#17. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
#18. To: jeremiad (#17)
(Edited)
When he can take a piece of steel hundreds of feet long and heat it only in a three foot section to 1800 degrees let me know. The energy will travel quickly to equalize the temperature.
#19. To: A K A Stone (#14)
Then the path of least resistance is not straight down. It is to fall over.
#20. To: Pinguinite (#18)
Though we think of metals as inherently good conductors of heat, steel rates rather poorly there. Aluminum conducts heat quite rapidly by comparison. It's why steel pots & pans generally don't need much in the way of thermally insulated handles. The pot gets hot, yet the steel handle welded or riveted to it remains only warm to the touch.
#21. To: TooConservative (#10)
(Edited)
#22. To: TooConservative (#19)
#23. To: Operation 40 (#21)
Just curious, have you read any of the official NIST reports on the Twin Towers?
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909017
#24. To: A K A Stone (#22)
If there is a point of weakness in the middle. The base is still solid. It should fall over because there is resistaqnce straight down but none if it were to fall over.
#25. To: TooConservative (#24)
You win. Okay?
#26. To: TooConservative (#7)
You only need to weaken a few floors. Once they start pancaking downward, it's all over.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
#27. To: A K A Stone (#25)
That is just what it seems like to me.
#28. To: TooConservative, Operation 40 (#10)
As for the collapse of WTC 7, I'm not sure how many people will care deeply that the official report blamed the heat expansion of column 79, leading to the collapse of columns 80 & 81, followed by a general structural collapse via pancaking.
#29. To: TooConservative (#7)
You only need to weaken a few floors. Once they start pancaking downward, it's all over.
Bingo, we have a winner!
#30. To: Pinguinite (#12)
His only peeve was that people had/have the impression that steel maintains the same structural strength at room temp as at 1800 degrees, below the melting point of steel.
E.3.6 Fire Exposure and Temperatures Reached by the Steel The pre-collapse photographic analysis showed that 16 recovered exterior panels were exposed to fire prior to collapse of WTC 1. None of the nine recovered panels from within the fire floors of WTC 2 were observed to have been directly exposed to pre-collapse fires. NIST developed a method to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members using observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. The method can only probe the temperature reached and it cannot distinguish between pre-and post-collapse exposure. More than 170 areas were examined on the recovered perimeter column panels; however, these columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns on the floors involved in fire and cannot be considered representative of other columns on these floors. Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250°C. These areas were:
#31. To: Fred Mertz (#27)
#32. To: rlk, TooConservative (#29)
Bingo, we have a winner!
#33. To: nolu chan (#28)
(Edited)
7WTC collapse was admitted to have been proven to have achieved gravitational acceleration for over two seconds.
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
#34. To: A K A Stone, TooConservative (#14)
Say a few floors did get weakened. Then the path of least resistance is not straight down. It is to fall over.
#35. To: TooConservative (#23)
Someone gave me a copy of the 9/11 Commission report for X-mas one year. I thought it was too dull to read. I think I still have it somewhere but have no more interest in reading it now than I did then.
I never click any .gov link. Well, almost never.
#36. To: A K A Stone (#31)
#37. To: Operation 40 (#33)
NIST admits 4 seconds. The only way for that to happen is if there's nothing underneath.
#38. To: nolu chan (#34)
at the lower floors, the steel was bigger and stronger.
#39. To: TooConservative, A K A Stone (#19)
However, in the case of the Towers, their structural strength was all in the central support columns. The entire building hung on those. So any collapse had to start from the center.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
#40. To: BorisY (#38)
at the lower floors, the steel was bigger and stronger.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]